Cost-effectiveness of echocardiography to identify intracardiac thrombus among patients with first stroke or transient ischemic attack.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Echocardiography to select stroke patients for targeted treatments, such as anticoagulation (AC), to reduce recurrent stroke risk is controversial. The authors' objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of imaging strategies that use transthoracic (TTE) and transesophageal (TEE) echocardiography for identifying intracardiac thrombus in new stroke patients. METHODS: Model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of 7 echocardiographic imaging strategies and 2 nontesting strategies with model parameters based on systematic evidence review related to effectiveness of echocardiography in newly diagnosed ischemic stroke patients (white males aged 65 years in base case). Primary outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). RESULTS: All strategies containing TTE were dominated by others and were eliminated from the analysis. Assuming that AC reduces recurrent stroke risk from intracardiac thrombus by 43% over 1 year, TEE generated a cost per QALY of $137,000 (relative to standard treatment) among patients with 5% thrombus prevalence. Cost per QALY dropped to $50,000 in patients with at least 15% intracardiac thrombus prevalence, or, if an 86% relative risk reduction with AC is assumed, in patients with thrombus prevalence of at least 6%. Probabilistic analyses indicate considerable uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness of echocardiography across a wide range of intracardiac thrombus prevalence (pretest probability). CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence on cost-effectiveness is insufficient to justify widespread use of echocardiography in stroke patients. Additional research on recurrent stroke risk in patients with intracardiac thrombus and on the efficacy of AC in reducing that risk may contribute to a better understanding of the circumstances under which echocardiography will be cost-effective.

Diagnosis, access and outcomes: Update of a systematic review of telemedicine services.

Telemedicine services are being increasingly used. Although insurers and other payers are covering some services in the USA, the rationale for these coverage decisions is not always evidence-based. We reviewed the literature for telemedicine services that substitute for face-to-face medical diagnosis and treatment. We focused on three types of telemedicine services: store-and-forward, home-based and office/hospital-based services. Studies were included if they were relevant to at least one of the three study areas, addressed at least one key question and contained reported results. We excluded articles that did not study a service requiring face-to-face encounters (i.e. teleradiology was excluded). Our search initially identified 4083 citations. After review, 597 were judged to be potentially relevant at the title/abstract level. Following a full-text review, 106 studies were included. Store-and-forward services have been studied in many specialties, the most common being dermatology, wound care and ophthalmology. The evidence for their efficacy is mixed. Several limited studies showed the benefits of home-based telemedicine interventions in chronic diseases. Studies of office/hospital-based telemedicine suggest that telemedicine is most effective for verbal interactions, e.g. videoconferencing for diagnosis and treatment in specialties like neurology and psychiatry. There are still significant gaps in the evidence base between where telemedicine is used and where its use is supported by high-quality evidence. Further well-designed research is necessary to understand how best to deploy telemedicine services in health care.